February 10, 2007

Cheney keeps secrets from the secret keepers.

by Kagro X

That the Bush "administration," and in particular the Office of the Vice President, have been extraordinarily secretive is, ironically, no secret.
But in a story first reported by Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune back in April 2006, details of the extent of the secrecy practices -- if they can be called that -- emerged to reveal something even darker and more disturbing than previously imagined:

As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as "top secret" or "confidential," one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and "any other entity within the executive branch" to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney insists he is exempt.
Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office's secrecy when offices such as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is "not under any duty" to provide it.

prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.

And how is the order to be implemented? Section 5.1(a):

The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall issue such directives as are necessary to implement this order. These directives shall be binding upon the agencies.

And who are "the agencies?" Section 6.1(b):

"Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

So what's the problem? Well, perhaps you recall the story reported by TPM Muckracker a few weeks ago, in which Justin Rood revealed that Cheney purports to have exempted his office from the requirement of disclosing the number of political appointees in the OVP, for a directory of all executive branch positions known as the "Plum Book."
Instead, what appears in place of that required disclosure is a three paragraph statement, beginning thus (PDF):

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see Article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see Article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

You read that right. The Vice Presidency is now "a unique office," a fourth branch, if you will.
If you will. But you shouldn't.
And in fact, ISOO won't:

In an extraordinary internal challenge to the unruly Office of the Vice President (OVP), the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) has formally petitioned the Attorney General to direct the OVP to comply with a requirement that executive branch organizations disclose statistics on their classification and declassification activity to ISOO.

But what, specifically, moved ISOO to call for this ruling? The OVP's bizarre conception of itself as somehow exempt? Well, yeah. That, and this:

For the last three years, Vice President Cheney's office has refused to divulge its classification statistics to ISOO, despite a seemingly explicit requirement that it do so. Prior to 2002, such information had routinely been transmitted and reported in ISOO's annual reports to the President.

Wacky, eh? I wonder what's been going on in the OVP that would give them reason to stop complying with the presidential Executive Order?
Oh! Here's something weird:

Libby Live: David Addington Four
By: emptywheel
1:45
F returns to the Libby sonnet/Cheney meat grinder document. Asking A how it would look when he found it.
There's a stamp at the top, that says, "treated as Top Secret/SCI, then crossed out, with declassified."
F walks him through how it looked when Addington got it. Has Addington talk though what Top Secret and SCI mean. Can documents be properly classified as "treated as Top Secret SCI" Is that a proper classification?
A President's EO doesn't use that phrase.
F Do you recall seeing any other document that were "treated as Top Secret/SCI"
F Did you put that marking there.
A No
F Do you know how it got there?
A On this particular page, no, but in the course of production, there were situations in which I received handwritten notes saying "treated as" some particular classification, when the govt came back later and asked for originals, from that I take it that when they made copies, they stamped that on there, but this one it seems like they stamped that on the original.

Well, well, well. The OVP has been out of compliance with executive orders on the classification of sensitive national security information for several years. During that time, they've been inventing their own classification system (and spending taxpayer money for official-looking stamps bearing this fake classification). And now the Vice President's former top aide is on trial in federal court, offering as a defense for his role in the burning of a critical nuclear nonproliferation asset the excuse that the Vice President personally authorized the declassification of sensitive information.
All the while, not reporting it, or complying with any of the presidential mandate covering the secure handling of sensitive national security information.
They still arrest people for that, don't they?

Oh how I miss the days when VP Dan Quayle was in office; when invented spelling (Can you say potatoe?) and attacks on the fictional TV character Murphy Brown were all the rage from OVP. And the media WAS there to put him in his place. Those were the days.

Actually, I'm a little scared. With Cheney, me/myself & I, being the fourth estate of government. Maybe, that is why---when he shot his best friend down in Texas, a while back, he did not report it to the White House. Because, he is the fourth branch of Government no need to report anyone, but himself.

And on a related subject, when are we going to get those 27 pages declassifed. Because if the Saudi's have ties to the 9/11 terrorist, I'm sure they "helping" us with that Iraq problem too.

Do you think Fitzgerald has everything for an IIPA prosecution against Cheney and Libby once he can secure a conviction of LIbby in the perjury and obstruction trial? It seems like he's got his hands on some documents that reveal a whole lot about the corrosive, undemocratic, and illegal behavior going on in the OVP. Some of it tangential to the outing of Valeria Plame, but other things may be directly related to that particular crime. Such as the Niger forgeries themselves. Imagine if Fitzgerald got the original or a copy of them and they had the "Treat as Top Secret/SCI" stamp on them.

Which reminds me, did I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Fitzgeral submitted several documents just before he rested his case, one of which was something retreived from a safe in the OVP? What is that all about?

You're on fire these days. The entire conduct of the OVP is, of course, what's on trial in Washington this week, disguised as a trial of Scooter Libby. The problem is enforcement. With our current Attorney General enforcement, not so much. He's more of a Defense Attorney for Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

I'm no longer able to speculate on the Libby case from a top-of-mind footing, but I always thought that the elements for an IIPA prosecution were there for a prosecutor creative enough to allow himself to see crime as crime, and not attach any assumptions of purity of motive to the trappings of office.

When you first appeared here on thn the sharks jumped you, and I was the first to argue that you should be treated with respect as it seemed to me that you were interested in genuine dialog. DemfromCt jumped on in agreement. This is no longer the case, lately you seem to only want to chide and disrupt. You sound a lot like a little kid who has lost an argument and can now only stick out your tongue to irritate the other. I, like many here have no problem with any person who wishes to present an argument in a reasonable and thoughtful manner, even if in a strongly provocitive manner. However, if all you want to do is yank chains then you have now become a waste of all our time, and I for one ask that you either get with the program or go away. You don't have to agree with the majority opinion on here, but you need to quit acting like a punk.

To everyone else: One more little snide assed usless remark from Jodi, and I will forever shun her, neither reading her post, nor in any way responding. I encourage all to take that approach, won't take her long to get bored and go away. Children don't like to be ignored.

And Libby won't even say, unequivocally, that ADD is right on his "theories" of absolute power:

Does Scooter Libby recognize that ADD's legal interpretations are full of shit?
It sure looks like it. Here's Libby's response to Fitzgerald's question whether or not he thought Navy v. Egan--which Addington (ADD in Libby's shorthand) cited as justification for the insta-declassification done by Bush and Dick--really said what ADD said it said.

Q. Did it appear to say what you thought Addington said that it meant?

A. Within reason, yes, sir. But Addington is very solid on these things.

Within reason? Even Scooter Libby, who has watched ADD justify the whole unitary executive with this tripe, won't even answer with a straight yes or no when asked if ADD is full of shit?

Clearly there was a conspiracy between Libby and Cheney. Conspiracy is a legal term. Can we all be adults and discuss this and other related conspiracies without being accused of being "Conspiracy Theorists?"

Having a theory about a conspiracy was a prerequisite for Fitzgerald's investigators. It's time to praise those who are able to think outside the box and comprehend the means, motive and opportunity that leads to these types of Conspiracies.

It's time to raise the level of discourse where the term "Conspiracy" is concerned:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.

Given what we know about VP Cheney's direct financial ties to Haliburton, isn't it clear that he has committed a fraud against the United States for the purpose of illegal financial gain, in accordance with the following statute? Couldn't the same be said of any US official who knowingly made false statements to advance the cause of war, while owning shares of companies that stood to gain substantially from that war? Cheney was acting specifically on behalf of the Contractor, Haliburton, to ensure no-bid contracts were awarded, based on knowingly fraudulent information generated by his own Office Of Special Plans. It might also be construed that any official who had a relationship to the Carlyle Group was also lying on their behalf - for their own financial benefit.

Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent -
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefitted as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given. That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

Everytime the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

Here's my theory about why Dick Cheney has needed to change his power status as V.P. I believe that daddy Bush knew that his son was impaired. (tears as he talked about Jeb-it looked like shame to me). I think that Cheney (also probably an alcholic but higher functioning that Bush) had to take over at times for Bush (the pretzel incident...bike accident times two...running into the british police officer).

We keep discussing these administrative issues devoid of Bush which is symptomatic in and of itself...it says something without saying anything about the system and the problem. He's not present...get it?? The power grab by Cheney has been an attempt to enable and protect Bush (and Cheney and all his assets-I am not pleading that Cheney is being self sacrificing...trust me).

This is a dynamic of the disease. Those surrounding an alcoholic become very controlling because they try to control the person with the disease and the disease. Alcoholic families are always highly secretive. Everybody works to keep the secret and to keep it unspoken. We cannot leave Bush out of the equation, he's in it...life is full of systems and patterns and this would fit a well known documented pattern.

I think they were "prepared" for Bush in case he would slip. And I think the pretzel incident (how many doctors gave their input that it would be impossible to fall on your face with that impact from choking...you slowly lose consciousness. But if you have ever seen a severe alcoholic hit the floor, they are out when they go down-Bush had two accidents during his presidency in which he had to put on make up to cover the bruises on his face...this is NOT NORMAL) signifies the slip. There's always more to the story and I just hate too much emphasis on Cheney without uncovering the bigger problem. Our president at times has been completely incapacitated by this disease.

And I believe we are as the american public often in denial about the severity of the disease and the fact that it is chronic and fatal without treatment and a program. THe symptoms linger they don't just go away. Living with a dry drunk is the same (if not worse than living with the active disease) and the most likely scenario for someone like Bush is that he would go in and out of relapses because he has not had treatment and is not working a 12 step program. The scenario that he had an alcohol addiction and possibly cocaine (suggest poly substance) and that he just spontaneously quit as he got God is not likely and in fact many people would say not possible. (for me, that's a little black and white but I think it's safe to say that such case would be extremely rare).

Also...someone on fdl suggested that Addy might have aspergers syndrome...at the time I stated that it looked more like OCD to me. Totally agree with that idea...Addy is odd in the OCD way and he would fit in well with a group of alcoholic's whose dx is very similiar to OCD...alcoholism is about obsession and compulsion.

Okay..my little co-dependent therapist self will shut up about this but I think Cheney's behavior is symptomatic of Bush's problem and that the whole system is more like a dysfunctional family protecting secrets, addictions, greed, self centeredness and lies. One of the central symptoms of the disease is that alcoholics are constitutionally unable to be honest with themselves...that is Bush/Cheney/Libby/Rove. And when it says constitutionally unable...it means there is nothing, nothing we can do to make them be honest...they are not capable. We as the american public must hold them accountable and understand that the lies and secrets are symptoms and they will only get worse.

I may be about to say something everyone else figured out, or, maybe it's new but it's the top thing on my mind with the Plame trial going on, or, maybe it's ridiculous.

Simply -- Fitz had no choice but to charge Libby with perjury and OOJ, because, Cheney had unilaterally declassified Plame's NOC status. Yes, CIA was right to request Fitz' inquiry, but because Cheney declassified Plame at any convenient time, the legality of the declassification was not a legal fight Fitz could take on -- and it undercut Fitz being able to pursue the obvious conspiracy charge, or, the possible IIPA charge.

Does this make sense, or am I way off?

And EW - simply, thank you for everything you've done these past few years!

I appreciate your thoughts, and maybe I was a bit flip. I don't deny that I can do and do "do flip" occasionally. So I apologize if I was "too" flip.

I guess what I am pointing out to you, Kagro X, and others underneath my flippedness is that like JC points out, what everyone screams about as "illegal" is not necessarily so.

Most of our politicians are lawyers, and those that aren't are surrounded by lawyers. The first thing lawyer/politicans do is write laws that are very vague, and then they, as lawyer defense/prosecuteors make a lot of money on these laws. It is a profit churning machine for them.

To be truthful I hate lawyers. Not personally, but what they stand for. The murky, mind dulling crap that I personally have to deal with with my own work. "Run it by the lawyers!" "I'm waiting for the lawyers." How many times have the people here heard that?

A very recent example of politicans and laws and such is the new essentially work arounds on the new lobbyist rules as shown in the NYt. It is business as usual fellow taxpayers.

Now I will say this, that after I apologize for my own flippedness, who here is going to apologize for their own climbing out on the tree branch screaming illegality, and treason, etc., when they don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about, and the tree branch just disappears and leaves them hanging in midair and they still don't realize that they have been had?

To the best of my knowledge, Cheney does not claim - nor does anyone else, that anyone declassified Plame's NOC status. Cheney claims that he declassified a portion of the NIE, but the timing seems suspect (after the Novak article).

As for Cheney's relationship to Bush Senior - he works directly for him. Bush Sr. is the ACTUAL President, and Cheney is his VP. Junior is just that, junior.

He's an alchoholic because he knows his father is the most evil man on earth, and W's only job is to lie to protect his father's crime syndicate. The fact that Jeb is no longer in a position to protect his Dad's operations in Florida is indicative that Charlie Christ is (by necessity) part of the Bush/CIA drug operation.

There are thousands of Secret Service and other agents who know the entre truth. They are mostly alchoholics now too - as they see their silence leading to Fascism and Martial Law. They are frightened for their own lives.

"who here is going to apologize for their own climbing out on the tree branch screaming illegality, and treason, etc."

You see, Jody. The thing is that I don't see examining these things, even yelling from the highest tree as climbing out on a tree branch. It's more like looking for a tree branch, any tree branch, and a heavy one, to hit these guys with.

Do you not see that a great wrong has been done to this country, to the world? Do you not see that people holding positions of the greatest responsibility in the world have severly breached the public trust?

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. These men knowingly pervert the law at every juncture, to serve their own ends and egos. They lie, they manufacture lies, and they are so damned powerful that it is very hard for truth seeking, honest men to check them in any way.

Are you not an any way angry that these men deliberately misled the congress and the american people into a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives? Can you even see that they did? Do you think they are guilty of no wrong? Of no Crime? Take a deep breath and tell me they acted only in an honest and virtuous manner.

One of my strongest bull headed republican friends is just speechless over this administration and his party. He finally gave up on defending them a year ago. I have another friend in Dallas who continues to support their every position. My problem is, I simply do not understand the mentality of those who won't call a duck a duck. How on earth can they not see? How on earth can they not face the thing that is so plainly obvious to the honest observer?

I though Kargo's post was well laid out and thought provocing, you attack him with 'flip'. He flames back. No fun. I am interested in hearing counterpoints, but I think discussion at some point must at some point lead to revilation by at least one party within the discussion. When you can no longer offer a cogent argument to your position. You must change your position. One huge problem we have in this country is a huge chunk of it will never ever change their minds. And that to me is the height of ignorance.

JC @ 12:11 - here is a link to Executive Order 13292: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

After you and others with an interesting in reading its contents have opportunities to review it, you will see that this executive order did not give the Vice President the authority to unilaterally declassify Valerie Wilson's NOC status. Let us look at Section 3.3(b)(1) in particular:

(b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a) of this section specific information, the release of which could be expected to:

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method...

Cheney has been wacko since the Nixon Administration--definitiely since his Ford Admin days--see this item where he suggests an FBI investigation of Seymour Hersh after an article he didn't like. People believed he was smart (and he is in a way, but he has terrible judgment and zero predictive abilities) because he is exceptionally persistent and can deliver outlandish views in a calm, confident way, to the extent that for years people did not quite believe he said what he said.

He is a truly scary person because he is powerful, paranoid, absolutely convinced of the rightness of his views, and yet spectacularly, repeatedly, has been wrong and anti-democratic (that means against our political system, Jodi) about nearly everything he has touched.

Notwithstanding, I believe Fitz thinks that indicting him is too political for him as a presecutor--that removal is essentially a political task for Congress. And Congress just sits there hoping he has another heart attack so they won't have to face such a difficult task. The only question is whether the rest of us can out-survive him.

Jodi, I would invite you to listen to the eight hours of Scooter's GJ testimony available through a link at CSPAN. I hope as you listen to Scooter stumble, stammer and say that he can't remember, his lack of character along with Cheney's will become more clear to you.

Excellent summary and citations. Mr. Cheney considers himself above the law, or, as another wag put it, that he IS the law. But not really, and he knows it.

Mr. Cheney is very smart. His actions, if emotional, are rational and purposeful, no matter that his politics are to the right of the proverbial Genghis Khan. They are also extremely well-coordinated. (Reputedly, thanks to David Addington and Irving Lewis Libby.) Hence, the response to provide names for the Plum Book - the Who's Who list of federal political appointees - was met with the unprecedented and unsupported assertion that the OVP is not part of the Executive Branch. And, separately, need not comply, eg, with the secrecy practices disclosure order. [The Senate, of course, should demand that its president submit the required information, including his public employee staff, etc., or censure him.]

Mr. Cheney, of course, is the prime mover of his government within the government. His supporters include his ueber-loyal staff, and the army of relatives (his daughter, formerly at State, and her husband, formerly general counsel of OMB and DHS) and acolytes he has disbursed throughout the Washington establishment. These not only give early warning of threats, they enforce discipline among the less devout. They also include ultra-conservative donors and the think tanks they fund, which provide a farm team, pasture, and breeding ground for the faithful.

As it should be, it is Mr. Cheney who is partly on trial in the Libby case. About time. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Many have pointed out how little George Bush (no pun intended) seems to be involved in these discussions. I credit that partly to his lack of energy, awareness, creativity, curiosity and intelligence. Not merely as a partisan jab, but because those traits force him to adhere to his caricatured notion of how little a CEO has to know or do to run an operation. It's like a plantation owner who hasn't a clue what the estate manager and overseer really do to allow him to live in the house with that columned portico.

That defective, caricatured version of real leadership is dangerous in the private sector, but lethal in the public sector. It has led to the power vaccum that Mr. Cheney has so brilliantly exploited, starting with appointing himself as Vice President. It comes with virtually no down side, but only so long as the president adheres to that caricature.

Consequently, virtually everything that Mr. Cheney does becomes not his but the president's liability. The "I was just following orders" defense turned on its head, since the inferior gave the orders, which the superior accepts as if he had given them. A real life Hogan's Heroes, without the heroes.

To maintain that position requires denying of reality - hence Cheney and Snow's refrains - and obfuscating the object of criticism by declaring it all "just politics". A notion to Mr. Bush that Mr. Cheney manipulates brilliantly. Opinions can be wrong, but rarely can they be illegal. An elegant Stay Out of Jail card that Mr. Libby's trial has just dog-eared.

I am not defending Bush, Cheney and their war machine. They have made a mess of it. You can castigate them all you want about the war, and I would only agree with you. I don't put Rumsfeld in that group, because he was only the corporate jock, the yes man, though a very visible one..

But I have never thought much of all the effort on the Plame affair. Yes I can see how there was a check mark put in a box on a police report that said CIA operative "possibly" outed. [[I would make a note that that box has been marked out, and "fibbing possibly detected" has been substituted.]] I liken the whole mess to Clinton, and did he "have sex with that woman."

I watch David Brooks and Mark Shields on Jim Lehrer, and it is the same as here. Brooks saying there was not much to it, and Shields saying the world was coming to an end.

Much ado about nothing is what I say!

And still the drum beat goes on alluding to all sorts of future possiblities that will never materialize. Hope goes on and attentions are diverted from things that are important.

I would say that Libby will be convicted of one or more counts. Yes I agree with Clarice that that are all sorts of snafus in the prosecutions cases, including where Fitz didn't even make a case for one of his counts, and it was reduced if not thrown out by Walton.
Still it is a DC jury and a trial of a high ranking worker for a very reviled administration. I would say that Libby's chances are slim. He has walked down a dark alley too late at night in a very bad section of town, looking too rich and prosperous.

I would say that chances are Libby will win on appeal, maybe 66%, but possibly not on all counts. Then there is a 50 to 75% chance that Bush will pardon him. I don't think that he is sleeping very well though.

All this mess about a stain on an intern's dress, and a man being mistaken about who he talked to.

Regarding Jodi, here's my conclusion: reading her posts is at best wasting one's own time. Responding to them, as I have done a few times, and thereby encouraging her to post again, is at best wasting space in this blog. At worst, it creates the possibility that someone unfamiliar with her contributions here might might conclude that she reflects a rational point of view in the discussion. So to minimizse that possibility I've decided not to feed the trolls, no matter how provocative they might be.

One way to sidestep the preznit's incurious nature is to embarrass him. In a tenuously related exchange published by UPI between Soroush Shehabi and "the deciderer", such an appeal was successfully landed...

From http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/20070208-100038-4021r

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

When you have the facts and the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have the facts but not the law, argue for justice.
When you don't have the facts, or the law, and justice is not in the offering, just raise your voice, pound the table, and appeal to the mob.

"Do you not see that a great wrong has been done to this country, to the world? Do you not see that people holding positions of the greatest responsibility in the world have severly breached the public trust?"

It was a simple enough question. Yet you respond with admitting that you agree they mismangaged the war. My cat gets that.

You are being dishonest. No one was talking about the handling of the war. We're talking about the massive lies, that people much smarter than you and I have illustrated to be illegal in every way imaginable right here on this board. Yet, you just keep shaking your head no with nothing but hyperbole to offer. Then you dodge the issue when given an sincere put up or shut up. I ask one final time. Can you not see? Or do you just really want to piss on everyone in a desperate attempt to hang on to an AM Radio world view?

let me refer to my last post on Libby, just above. I will put in quotes line by line.

"JC,

I understand your assumptions, but I respectfully disagree with them."

Dismayed what is wrong with that? Can't two people disagree, and you should notice that unlike others here, I never attack JC, or for that matter anyone else. I never call anyone names. I even say that "I respectfully disagree"

"Well, now I see that Mr Cheney is expected to testify. Mr Libby is not. (NYt tonight)

That is smart. There are many witnesses against Mr Libby and though the defense has picked holes in some of their actions and testimony, there are still 5 to 7 witnesses against 1 defendant."

The first sentence only restates what I saw in the NYt. The second sentence says that I think Cheney will help Libby because he is in trouble with multiple witnesses against him. If you don't like the wording, then why not attack the message, and not the messenger?

"It should help Libby, but even so, I think his chances at this DC trial will only become 50:50 at best."

That sentence says that Mr Cheney should help Libby but still he probably will be convicted. What is wrong with that Dismayed?

"And those here who think they will get to hang Cheney will get a chance to have their hopes realized or dashed.

I would bet on Cheney, but there are no sure things."

I think you would be in that group that wants to hang Cheney and I am saying that you will get a chance, but nothing is certain.

And the second sentence says that I would say that Cheney will come out ok, but I realize that anything can happen.

Now Dismayed attack the message all you want, but why attack the messenger?

Now when emptywheel puts a little notice at the top of the blog, saying only certain kind of opinions are welcome, and these kind (per Jodi) are unwelcome, then I will move on.

It seems to me that in the land of the free, in a land where dissent is protected, and free speech is championed that we ought to do well together, dismayed, Kagro X, cyrmo, freepatriot, etc.

Or is it that you reserve those lofty ideals ONLY for yourselves, and your own ideas,

I for one have never attacked you, Jodi. What I'm really trying to do is get you to understand why you are getting attacked. I'll agree that you have on occation been jumped unfairly, and have said as much. This particular thread of your's and mine began with the discussion of "flip" which we've addressed. Some pople don't like dissent, but you can't pay any attention to that. Dissent is always good, but in this post you keep throwing indirect attacks at what was a fine and coherent position staked out by Kargo, you didn't directly address what he said. And it seems to me you are still dodging the question I have asked you three times now.

Do you not see?

That's why Kargo keeps calling you an idiot. You seem to be answering the issue you want to rather than the issue we are all really talking about. And I've pressed you on it three times now, and still you dodge. One more chance. Can you not see? Refer to above if you don't understand the question.

I assumed that Mr Cheney was being discussed, and that post I mentioned and dissected for you pertained mostly to Cheney and the Libby trial.

i.e. (from Kagro X " And now the Vice President's former top aide is on trial in federal court, offering as a defense for his role in the burning of a critical nuclear nonproliferation asset the excuse that the Vice President personally authorized the declassification of sensitive information"

How am I off subject?

Kagro X,

I love you as a fellow human being and won't call you bad names.

I do like your use of infinity, so I will give you one an old math professor once told us showing that math professors did know jokes.

~a young math grad student was in love with a younger female math student, and so he sent her a valentine with a poem, which said (with my modification ):

~You are the queen of your sex,
and I want to be your hero.
My love for you is as one over (Kagro X),
as (Kagro X) approaches zero.~

So you won't answer the question. I'm still not sure if you are praciting rudementary deliberate avoidance, and thus intellectual dishonesty, or simply thick as a brick, but I won't be bothered with either case. I'm done here. Tell them I tried Kargo.

""Do you not see that a great wrong has been done to this country, to the world? Do you not see that people holding positions of the greatest responsibility in the world have severly breached the public trust?""

I have agreed that the war was mismanaged, that many ideas and efforts of the Bush Administration were wrong. I don't say that everything was mismanaged.

If that is what you are talking about, I apologize and can only say that I have said similar things so many times, I thought I had expressed it clearly here.

All politicans are liars, and two faced at the very least. But because of the opportunity of chance and fortune, Bush has dragged this country down into the muck more than any in my short experience, or from my reading of history. I wasn't voting at the time, but I didn't like Clinton, and his excesses and mistakes have had far less deleterious affect on America and the world than Bush's.

Putin is right, and I hate to have to say that, because I despise him.

Okay, so here's the thing. Even Bush has finally admitted to mismanaging the war. We all get that. But we're not talking about the management of the war. We're talking about the lead up to the war. We're talking about how the Cheney cabal deliberately misled (lied) to congress and the American people. We're exploring the legality of forming a parallel intel operation to get around the legitimate and long established professional agencies, so that they could control the outcome of intelligence gathering and reporting to fit a preset political agenda. Kargo was illustrating how, yes that is illegal.

So you say Libby is much ado about nothing, it is not. But you still haven’t answered the question. You got the right quote, but it’s related to the lead up to the war not the handling. If you can’t see that we were deliberately misled, then I would say start over and read all of these fine posts again, but if you can see. Then it begs the question of, ‘were laws broken’? If they were that’s where the lying to cover it begins. And that’s what makes Libby the all important tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the chances of any follow up indictments is slim, but if they lied to us, and if it was illegal, should not justice be done? Should Libby not be prosecuted, and then hopefully give a foothold for the continuing investigation of the lying that led this country into so much loss of lives, prestige, and treasure. So, can’t you see? Can’t you see that they lied to you? If you do. Don’t you realize that those lies are going to cost you in real tax dollars for the rest of your life. You’re young as it seems, that may be a while. And if they fucked you, shall we not try to explore every means necessary to hold them accountable?

Hell, Jodi. I’ve admitted on these very boards that I felt we had to go in during the lead up to the war. I was wrong. I trusted our leadership. I trusted them to know more than me and to tell the truth. They knew more than me, but they lied. They won my support, congress’ support, your support because they lied, and they knew they were lying. They manufactured the evidence to support those lies. Then they lied to cover the lies. That's what Libby is about. The damage that has been done to this country is incalculable. All this is hard to prove yes, yet easy to see at this point.

Dismayed, I'm with you bro. I simply refuse to admit there's not a mind in there somewhere. You do a better job at chipping away than I ever could. I just hope it doesn't turn into some sordid little greek tragedy in the process. But rest assured, the sphinx will not come back saying that Jodi's your mother.

Well, again, I accede to most of what you are saying dismayed, and have always, but I have been pounding away on some other points.

But to put it again:

I didn't see the need to go to war with Iraq in the very beginning, and certainly NOT in the hurry that everyone seemed to be in, and stated that to my two older brothers and father. My oldest brother, who is in combat, unlike my father and next brother who are or were military doctors, told me that because of the weather, they needed to move rapidly, or it would be too hot and there would be sand storms, etc., and then in a year it would be an election, and that wasn't the time either politically. So they needed to move when they did and actually it was a little later than they wanted.

I too listened to WMD charges, and all the other stuff, and said "well, ok, I guess I see the reasons they are acting on" though I wish we could wait and make more certain.

Now about your question is whether we got all the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth. It is a good question. I don't ever expect to get the truth about much of anything from any of those rascals in Washington. Republican or Democratic. They are politicans and they lie dismayed. They plain lie all the time, all day, every day. I deal with high tech but still sometimes I glimpse the underside of the belly of the awful beast in Washington, as our lawyers, and big guys manipulate the system to their/our advantage. They will talk to me and crow over how they have moved some politicans over to a side that they want.

I don't think that Bush and Co. were just so clever and mean that they deliberately got us into this mess though. I think that they were just so arrogant, greedy, and stupid, stupid, stupid, that they only listened to "yes men" and parroted that on to the American people. They shut their ears when the Army chief of staff spoke up about manpower. They ignored Collin Powell. They ignored the type of plans/contingencies/operations that they are now promoting as the solution the the Iraqi problems.

I had no idea at the time that the Bush Administration was ignoring the people who give objective answers. And finding people that gave answers that dovetailed with tax breaks, and fuzzy warm feelings!
There is a distinction there Dismayed. It is sort of like homocide and negligent homicide. First degree murder and Felony DUI.

Still I say hang them all, like I told the solicitor in the county I was called to Jury duty in. I said that I didn't belong to MADD, but I would "hang" anyone that had an accident while drinking.

If anyone wants to IMPEACH BUSH for gross incompetence and the lives of near 4,000 American service people, and 20,000 seriously wounded, and perhaps the bringing about of a nuclear Arab and Persian world, I am in.

BUT as for what is commonly called here on this site, the Plame case now, or what actually was the rebuting of Joe Wilson, I don't see things the way most here see them. I don't let my hatred of the Bush administration get in the way of logic. (I guess I am not much of a politican or a political blogger either, too much of a techo geek who wants a precise calculation and result.)

"I don't think that Bush and Co. were just so clever and mean that they deliberately got us into this mess though. I think that they were just so arrogant, greedy, and stupid, stupid, stupid, that they only listened to "yes men" and parroted that on to the American people."

I hear you, a whole lot of people don't want to believe that. I sure didn't early on, but it is here that the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

The mismanagement, the not listening to generals - I agree a lot of that was hubris, not all some was political. But when it comes to this business of ‘yes men’, your statement I quoted above. That's where most of the people here on this blog differ with you. And it is very important to know if it was only arrogance and listening to yes men, or if there was intent, even criminal intent involved.

I have always said the Bush is not the real president that Cheney is, and if you strip Bush out, hey perhaps it was just ignorance and arrogance. He's a chump puppet president. If I had to make a gut call on it, I'd say he’s at least somewhat culpable in allowing it and assisting in obstruction of uncovering the truth, but I'm willing to allow the argument not being so clever where Bush himself is concerned.

But Cheney, I think it has become painfully clear that he was up to his ass in deliberate misrepresentation. Even more clear as the Libby trial has progressed.

I think you are being very naive to think Cheney is not that “clever and mean” He’s a smart man, and as far as I can see cold as a stone. Give it some careful thought, Jodi. Our entire system of justice depends on the vow of truth in the courtroom having teeth. If we can’t ferret out lies and prosecute them, how can we ever get to the center of a syndicate of people who peddle lies to meet their own political ends. My opinion is that perjury should be considered the most serious crime in the world. Perjury protects those who commit high crimes. If we can’t punish perjury, how can we ever prosecute treason, or corruption, or embezzlement, or lying to congress.

Libby is important. If Cheney deliberately lied, manufactured intel, misled this country into a very costly war against the will of our allies in the world, should we not get to the bottom of it. Should we just say, “oh well he may have lied, guess we’ll never know.” Should we just say, “well he either has a bad memory or he’s lying, guess we’ll never know?” Jodi, perjury is the cornerstone of corruption in a society. It is not “much ado about nothing”.

I agree that it is a crime, and it would appear that Mr Libby didn't tell the truth. The question I think for this trial and this jury, is was it deliberate, what kind of effect did it have, and also exactly who was misled or lied to? I didn't make up those questions, our legal system did.

The jury will tell us that. That is also how our system is set up, though at times people get upset with jury decisions or Supreme Court decisions. (Have you ever been?)

((I will never talk to an FBI agent except if a child is missing or something, because they don't even have to tell you that it is against the law to not tell them the truth, and it is still perjury/obstruction? if you do.
For example: "I don't know where his wife and child fled to." If that is a lie regardless of the intention, and regardless of the FBI NOT informing you that you are liable for perjury, you are breaking the law. That happened to a friend of mine, and they threatened her. What you do is to say, I must confer with my lawyer, and you can talk to them. As a matter of fact, here is his/her card.))

Just as an aside, I like the British system better than ours, where if you find the dead body in the car trunk with an improper search, you can can still use it for evidence. Evidentiary requirements are different.

But they have some strange cases as well. For example the classic one where they outlawed slavery on British soil, but it was alright to transport slaves, and deal in slaves.

And finally and once again, dismayed, remember that this case as it is formulated and presented to the court is only about whether Mr Libby lied about an inconsequential timeline. IF he is found guilty, it will only be about that. NO FURTHER CASE WILL BE MADE ON THE GUILTY VERDICT, though there seems to be still high hopes.

And it is a serious matter, yes indeed. Mr Libby could go to prison for several years and more importantly get a felony, that will prevent his ever practicing law again.

Close enough. Keep your eye on the big picture. And realize that what may seem inconsequential to you, may not be inconsequential at all. If you believe crimes were committed, hope a way to bring those crimes to account is found. No matter how 'inconsequential' the first step may seem.

This whole thing is errie...it's almost like Cheney is the dictator. Note: Bush Jr. had no previous foreign policy experience prior to becoming President while Cheney has been in politics for a long time... He was once Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon. Bush Jr. seems to listen to Cheney...so I bet Cheney is the one running the show or at least manipulating his position by far. Ever remember a more powerful VP?